I couldn't agree more. The original context was about the possibility of a military draft, but this is the truth for every issue. "We" need to quit talking about what "we" need to do. "We" especially need to stop talking about what "we" need to do for "our" children. My children are not your children, and your children are not mine. For you Christians out there, where does your Bible authorize you to make decisions about the raising of other people's children? Where does your Bible command you to participate in and advocate some big collective of society with one common purse making decisions for the "common good"? The only thing I can find on the subject is Proverbs 1:10-19, and I think that sums up the matter quite well.

2007-04-13

It's a despicable thing to make hurtful comments based on someone's skin color. But it's an even more despicable thing to threaten to use the law to take away somebody's freedom, and to encourage a society that thinks it is right to decide what is and is not permitted for other people. The former hurts feelings. The latter ultimately results in either free people submitting to enslavement, or free people having government force used against them when they refuse to submit. In the end, when you tell people you think there should be a law against certain things they say, you are telling them that you authorize your representatives to act in your behalf and pick up a gun to threaten those people. That's not right, and it's far worse than simply saying something hurtful.

"We" don't need to have any such discussion, Mr. Sharpton. If I own a printing press, I'll decide what gets printed on it. If I own a radio station, I'll decide what gets broadcast on it. If you have a problem with that, get your own press or station and quit trying to take (or control) what doesn't belong to you.

I call for an immediate end to the Federal War on Drugs, because it is unconstitutional.

When alcohol was prohibited in 1920, it took an Amendment to the United States Constitution. Why? Because Congress and the federal government did not have the legal power to prohibit the manufacture and sale of alcohol.

Congress has a specific set of powers. They are enumerated (this means listed) in Article One. According to the Tenth Amendment, all other powers are forbidden to the federal government. They belong to the states and/or the people. This means that without the 18th Amendment, states had the power to prohibit alcohol, but the federal government did not.

The passage of the Tenth Amendment was actually a little bit controversial. Not because some people believed the federal government shouldn't be limited -- it was controversial because some of the authors of the Constitution thought it was obvious that Congress couldn't pass laws exceeding the listed powers in the Constitution, and didn't think the Constitution should have to explicitly say this.

So how come it took an Amendment to the Constitution to give the federal government the power to prohibit alcohol, but today the federal government prohibits other drugs even though no such Amendment was ever passed giving them that power? They certainly don't get that power from the 18th Amendment -- it was repealed in 1933. Can you tell me which article of the Constitution authorizes Congress to pass laws prohibiting drugs? And if so, can you tell me why that article gives that power today, but did not give the power to prohibit alcohol in 1920?

What's changed? The way we perceive our government and the Constitution. And this is a tragedy.

You know what? I hate drugs. Drugs have ruined a lot of lives. But I hate tyranny more. Tyranny has ruined far more lives than drugs.

Today the federal government has all the same powers of a monarchy. I thought we were supposed to be different, somehow. The only difference seems to be that we get to elect a new ruling family every few years. How well is that system working for you?